The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-10-02
BEFORE JUDGE ZANE.
Antics of a Jury in the
Anderson Case.
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
MT. Charles LiRiugst Gives Test
mOny Against Himself and is
Convicted-Uthsr Business.

The case of the United States vs.
Samuel Anderson, charged with unlaW-
full cohabitation, was taken up in the
Third District Court yesterday. A
| jury was called and accepted by both
sides.
Mrs. ANNA ANDERSON was the first
witness called.
Mr.. RAwLIEs, for the defense, OBJ
jected to the lady being sworn, she
being the legal wife of the defendant.
She was sworn upon Ter voir dire, and
stated that she was the defendants
legal wife, and did not wish to testify.
This point was argued by counsel.
The Court held that the witness could
not be compelled to give any testimony
whatever in the case against the objec-
ton of the husband or wife who should
be the defendant in the case.
The COURT sald-"l understand the
consent to mean The other SIDE, the de-
iendant, the husband or wife, and not
the witness. Ii the husband or wife
consents, the witness may be compelled.
1t is not for the protection of the wit
mass but of the husband or wifi who IS
the defendant. | am OF the inion her
testimony should not go to the Jury.
1t Is tor The court alone. The testi-
mOny will be stricken out so far as the
| jury is concerned"
JOHANNA Booker was then called.
| MIR. Rawlins. for the defense, asked the
| court to instruct the witness That she
| could refuse to testify to anything that
! might tend to criminate her of any
otfense.
To this Mr.. Clark objected, insisting
| that the Court was not authorized TO so
instruct. The Court replied that if the
witness was ignoranL of her rights, the
Court could not rake advantage of that
fact, but should inform her of the law.
| The witness could not be required to
testify if she declined on the ground
| that her evidence might tend to Crimi-
nate herself, end SO instructed her.
The witness then testified that her
name was Johanna Booker; she lived
| in the Eleventh Ward; an old l.dy
named Mrs. Younger lived with her; a
Mrs. Helistrom aud another person &C
cupied another part Of the house. The
| witness testified that she had been
married to defendant twelve years ago;
had no children by him; at the time OF
the marriage she lived with her mother
in the Thirteenth Ward; had lived st
her present residence for two years; de
PENDANT never came to see her; she
worked at his tailor shop; had done so
! or four or five wears; had
been working there continuously
since May, 1884; the defendant paid her
So per week for her services, and some
times earned some extra money by out
side work; it amounted to from 80 cents
to 81 per week, with this and her wages
she was able 80 board and Clothe her
self and to pay her rent; defendant
nsver paid her more than SIS a week;
was not defendants vile; did not call
herself Mrs. Anderson; he never called
her his wife, and she never called him
her husband she called him Mr.. Ander
snn, and he called her Johanna or
Miss Booker; never called him Sam; he
had not called at her house for fouryears;
he had wife named Anna Anderson,
who lived IN Plum Alley; he had no
other wife; could not say whether he
slept with Anna OR not; defendant
never took witness to church. He had
three sons living in the city, and one
who was away; the youngest was about
| II years old. Defendant still reCog-
nized Anna as his wife. She (the wit
ness) was not his secOud wife; defend
ant toll her about four years ago of
the Edmunds Law, and said be was
going to live up to it. Had never
missed working at the tailor shop
for tT0 or three weeks at
time had not occupied
the same bed with defendant since
February, 1885, did no! take his dinner
at Anderson's house; never went to a
restaurant with him for meals; was
| H. 4. otol n Of
talked with him about the case; before
the arrangement to separate was made
she might have been called Mrs. Ander-
son.
BOWMAN CANNON was the next wit
ness. He testified that he arrested the
defendant; Johanna Booker was pres
eut when the arrest was made; de-
| PENDANT said that he was unable to live
with his first wife and lived with but
one woman.
This closed the evidence, and Mr..
! Peters made the opening argument for
the prosecution. He was followed by
Mr.. Rawlins for the defense, and Mr..
Clark made the closing argument for
| the prosecution.
in his charge to the jury, the Court
said that the mere fact of Miss B 0cker
| working at defendant's shop did not of
|
the association ofhusband and wife
must be shown.
The jury, after retiring for a short
time, brought in verdict of guilty.
Mr. RAWLINs Immediately made a
motion for a new trial, On the ground
that the verdict was not warranted by
the evidence, and was against the law.
The Court took the matter under ad-
yisement until Monday.
| Z 1t is difficult to see how. in view of
I TIE evidence and the Courts charge.
the jury could have found verdict of
guilty.
The case of the United States VS..
Charles Livingstone, charged with IN
lawful cohabitation, was then taken up.
Mr.. LIVINGSTONE, the defendant, was
sworn and testified that the name of his
lawful vile was Jane Horrocks Living
ston; the second wife was Ellen Living
ston. Both wives lived in the same
house with him during 1888, though
each Vife occupied separate apartments;
he still acknowledged them as his wives;